Saturday, March 19, 2011

The unintended consequences of goofy hoplophobes. Anti-firearm rights Democrat moke demands mandatory open carry! I like it! (Sorta.)

"Hey, I'm all out of 9mm! Let's go to WalMart."


A bill in Louisiana would require sportsmen to show the serial number on their firearms before purchasing ammunition.

House Bill 8, introduced by Representative Juan LaFonta (D- New Orleans), requires any person selling ammunition to verify that the serial number of the gun for which the ammunition will be used has not been altered or destroyed. Only antique and war relic firearms would be exempt from this new requirement if they are rendered inoperable or if ammunition for these firearms is not available in the U.S. and not otherwise readily available through other means.

Essentially, this bill would require sportsmen to take their guns with them to their local gun shop anytime they needed to purchase ammunition. While there, the sales clerk would be required to check the gun’s serial number to make sure it wasn’t altered in any way before selling any ammunition. Sportsmen would have to go through this process every time they want to purchase ammunition. Those wanting to buy ammunition for more than one gun at a time would have to carry every with them to the store to be examined by the sales clerk.

Now let's say that Louisiana lawmakers are insane enough to try this (which they aren't, but let's say). And let's say that Louisiana firearm owners go along with this offense to God, man and liberty without, at least, shooting Juan LaFonta and sparking a guerrilla war (also unlikely).

What then is the effect of this policy? Why to get folks used to seeing other folks tote firearms on the street. It is instant, mandatory open carry. Grandmas carrying shotguns and Boudreau carrying his Barrett Light Fifty. Hell, I LIKE this idea! People would get used to other people carrying weapons in the open and would desensitize, losing both fear and interest. Why if I lived in Louisiana I'd put on my old combat harness, holster my .45, sling my M14S and march right up to Juan LaFonta and thank his confused ass.

If, of course, the first two objections didn't apply. Which they do.

Of course.

But, other than being devoid of common sense, constitutionally offensive and an incitement to civil war it is a great idea.

Not that Juan LaFonta would think so at the end of the process.

Like granny says, somebody might "Shoot him in his toodles."

LATER: And if you want to communicate your laughter to the silly man, you make email him at:

Babineaux: "Boudreaux, how we gon' get dis down to Bellefontaine's Gun shop for to get some ammo?"

Boudreaux: "Let's strap it to a gator."


Dakota said...

Grandma get's to shoot the MP40 ... damn I am jealous. I've wanted one of those since I was a little kid watching "COMBAT". I always thought the "Krauts" had cooler sub guns than the "Sarge".

I wonder if there is any way of opening up the mind of the classic liberal/progressive/socialist and plain old "dumb ass" to try and understand what in the hell they are thinking? sigh ..... I suppose maybe we would recoil in horror like we do without knowing. Amazing!!

Carl Bussjaeger said...

Care to bet that he offers a "reasonable" compromise in which all firearms are registered and listed on a firearms owner ID card which has to be presented for ammo purchase?

But I kinda like the the idea of watching Wally World "people greeters" at the door shitting bricks when we walk in festooned with assorted weaponry:

"Sir, is... that... an AK-47?

"Nope. Just a WASR-10"

"And are those... SWORDS?"

"Yep. Besides ammo, I want to buy a sharpening system, and figured I'd play it safe in case LaFonta still has his head up his ass."

Scott J said...

I would have a major issue with this.

On some of my rifles the serial is obscured by the scope mounts.

It's really irrelevant since I load my own but if I wanted off the shelf stuff I would not want to dork up my zero just to show the serial to retailers co-opted by the nanny state.

BrianF said...

"Only antique and war relic firearms would be exempt from this new requirement if they are rendered inoperable.."
Can someone explain to me why you would be buying ammo for gun that doesn't fire? This guy is brilliant.

Bad Cyborg X said...

Somebody enlighten me here. I'm not trying to be cute or anything, I REALLY do want to know.

1) Why, exactly does this infringe on our 2A rights? (Not that I'm thinking of suggesting Texas follow suite, mind you)

2) Why is this proposed law an "incitement to civil war"?

2) What is this guy hoping to accomplish?

Scott J, why would you have a "major issue" with it?

I'm with Carl B on wanting to see the greeters at Wally World soiling themselves the first time somebody comes in to buy ammo after this is passed. If they'd soil themselves over an AK, what'd my big ol' FNAR do to 'em?

Bad Cyborg X

Anonymous said...

Instead of bragging about your big new fukn gun, why don't you turn your head around and think like a warrior with the skills and ability to use that weapon instead of being a sheeple. You obviously don't have the mindset of someone willing to make a stand, just a sort of go along, get along guy, am I right? If after all these posts of yours and you still don't understand why people get pissed at the erosion of our rights, please do us all a favor and give that big badass FNAR to a patriot who has the will to use it effectively! You don't seem to understand what it's real purpose is.

Semper Fi, 0321

LA Confederate said...

As a resident of the Pelican State, I can tell ya'll that every year some sort of anti-firearm legislation is proposed. It almost always comes from some of the do-gooder democrats from New Orleans. When it is introduced, it is always slapped down in a profound way. While we must claim New Orleans as part of our state, we do not have any use for its citizens and representatives (for the most part.)

On another note, Open Carry is already 100% legal in LA and there are numerous people who do so. There is even a group associated with open carry in LA:

JohnWaynefeautingReaSon said...


1). This is not a violation of any 2d A rights. However, I do not advise Texas to follow suit either.

2). I think that the "incitement to civil war" line might have been a little over-dramatic in retrospect? I don't see it either.

3). No idea what was supposed to be accomplished.